Comparison of lipid-lowering effects of low-dose fluvastatin and conventional-dose gemfibrozil in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

Fluvastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Fibrates for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease events

BACKGROUND

Fibrates are effective for modifying atherogenic dyslipidaemia, and particularly for lowering serum triglycerides. However, evidence that fibrates reduce mortality and morbidity associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), or overall mortality and morbidity, in the primary prevention of CVD is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane Review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of fibrates versus placebo or usual care or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (all from inception to 19 May 2016). We searched four clinical trial registers (last searched on 3 August 2016) with the help of an experienced professional librarian. We searched the databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effects of fibrate therapy in the primary prevention of CVD events. We did not impose any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all RCTs comparing the effects of fibrate monotherapy versus placebo or usual care, or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone. Included studies had a follow-up of at least six months for the primary prevention of CVD events. We excluded trials with clofibrate, because it was withdrawn from the market in 2002.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential study inclusion. Two review authors independently retrieved the full-text papers and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggregate data on primary and secondary outcomes. We tested for heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q-test and used the I2 statistic to measure inconsistency of treatment effects across studies. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler software (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible trials including 16,135 individuals. The mean age of trial populations varied across trials; between 47.3 and 62.3 years. Four trials included individuals with diabetes mellitus type 2 only. The mean treatment duration and follow-up of participants across trials was 4.8 years. We judged the risks of selection and performance bias to be low; risks of detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias were unclear. Reporting of adverse effects by included trials was very limited; that is why we used discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects as a proxy for adverse effects. Patients treated with fibrates had a reduced risk for the combined primary outcome of CVD death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke compared to patients on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence). For secondary outcomes we found RRs for fibrate therapy compared with placebo of 0.79 for combined coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence); 1.01 for overall mortality (95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); 1.01 for non-CVD mortality (95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); and 1.38 for discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects (95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; participants = 4805; studies = 3; I2 = 74%; very low-quality of evidence). Data on quality of life were not available from any trial. Trials that evaluated fibrates in the background of statins (2 studies) showed no benefits in preventing cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that fibrates lower the risk for cardiovascular and coronary events in primary prevention, but the absolute treatment effects in the primary prevention setting are modest (absolute risk reductions < 1%). There is low-quality evidence that fibrates have no effect on overall or non-CVD mortality. Very low-quality evidence suggests that fibrates are not associated with increased risk for adverse effects.

Lipoprotein(a) is related to the extent of lesions in the coronary vasculature and to unstable coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Lp(a) is a highly atherogenic particle with a prothrombotic effect. Until now its relation to the extent and severity of the atheromatic lesions had not been established by standard procedures.

HYPOTHESIS

This study examined the correlation of Lp(a) to the extent and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) and its relation to unstable clinical events (not including sudden death).

METHODS

In 202 patients undergoing coronary angiography, plasma lipids were measured with the usual procedures and Lp(a) with the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The extent of CAD was expressed in the number of diseased vessels and its severity in terms of the severity coefficient and the obstruction coefficient.

RESULTS

A very strong relationship between LP(a) and the number of diseased vessels (p = 0.0007) signifying diffuse atherosclerosis, but no relation with the severity of the lesions. was found. However, it was the only lipid that correlated significantly with the number of totally occluded vessels (p = 0.0003). The thrombogenic ability of Lp(a) was manifested by increased incidence of myocardial infarction and unstable angina episodes in patients with elevated Lp(a) (p = 0.0157).

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) predisposes to the extent of CAD and total occlusions but not to the severity of lesions. Patients with increased Lp(a) levels and unstable angina are at increased danger of suffering myocardial infarction. Thus, Lp(a) may predispose to plaque destabilization and thrombosis of noncritical lesions.

Effect of omega-3-acid ethyl esters on steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters (P-OM3) have been used as adjunctive therapy to statin drugs in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of concomitant administration of 4 g P-OM3 on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the maximum recommended daily dose of atorvastatin (80 mg) in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, repeated-dose, two-way crossover, drug interaction study of two treatments: 4 g of P-OM3 with 80 mg atorvastatin daily or 80 mg atorvastatin daily, each administered for 14 days under fasting conditions to 50 healthy adults.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary determinants of drug interaction were the ln-transformed area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUCtau) and maximum measured steady-state plasma concentration (C(max,ss)) over the final 24 h dosing interval (day 14) for atorvastatin and 2-hydroxyatorvastatin. Safety assessment included clinical laboratory evaluations and adverse event reporting.

RESULTS

The extent and rate of exposure (AUCtau, C(max,ss)) to atorvastatin and its active metabolites following daily administration of P-OM3 with atorvastatin (80 mg) were similar to those following the administration of atorvastatin (80 mg) alone. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

After 14 days of dosing, the rate and extent of exposure (AUCtau, C(max,ss)) to atorvastatin and its active metabolites were similar with both treatments, indicating that administration of P-OM3 did not affect the steady-state bioavailability of orally administered atorvastatin.

Effect of omega-3-acid ethyl esters on the steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Patients with persistent hypertriglyceridemia while on statin therapy may require adjunctive lipid-lowering therapy to meet treatment goals.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of concomitant administration of prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters (P-OM3), triglyceride-lowering agents, on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, repeated-dose, two-way crossover drug interaction study of two treatments - 4 g P-OM3 plus 40 mg rosuvastatin or 40 mg rosuvastatin alone administered daily for 14 days each under fasting conditions--was conducted in 48 non-smoking healthy adults.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary determinants of drug interaction were the ln-transformed area under the plasma concentration versus time curve [AUC(t(ss))] over the final (day 14) 24 h dosing interval and maximum measured steady-state plasma rosuvastatin concentration [C(max(ss))] on day 14. Safety was assessed by clinical and laboratory testing and recording of adverse events.

RESULTS

AUC(t(ss)) and C(max(ss)) following daily administration of rosuvastatin with P-OM3 were similar to those following monotherapy with rosuvastatin. All adverse events recorded during the study were classified as mild and self-limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of P-OM3 with rosuvastatin did not affect the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin under steady-state conditions in healthy individuals.

Genetic markers to predict polygenic disease

Many genetic markers that relate to common multifactorial disease in adults have been identified during the past 15 years. Their use as adjuncts for the diagnosis, prognosis, prediction of disease or targeting therapy for these disorders has commenced; good examples being the Factor V Leiden mutation for venous-thromboembolism, lipoprotein lipase mutations for hypertriglyceridemia and the apolipoprotein E4 variant for Alzheimer's dementia. However, extensive gene-gene interactions and gene-environment interactions make their use more complex than markers for the simpler monogenic disorders (eg, cystic fibrosis, or Duchennne's muscular dystrophy). Possible misapplications of the use of genetic markers for multifactorial disease are discussed.

Efficacy and safety of a new hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, atorvastatin, in patients with combined hyperlipidemia: comparison with fenofibrate

This 24-week, randomized, open-label multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin compared with fenofibrate in the treatment of patients with combined hyperlipidemia (CHL). Following a 6-week baseline period, 84 patients with CHL were randomly assigned to either atorvastatin treatment, 10 mg QD for 12 weeks increasing to 20 mg QD for 12 weeks, or fenofibrate treatment, 100 mg TID for 24 weeks. Changes from baseline in lipid parameters were evaluated at weeks 12 and 24. At both 10- and 20-mg doses, atorvastatin treatment resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein (apo) B, total cholesterol, LDL-apoB, and lipoprotein-B compared to 300-mg fenofibrate treatment (P < .05). While atorvastatin also resulted in clinically significant reductions in triglyceride, VLDL cholesterol, apoB in VLDL, triglyceride in VLDL, and apoC-III and significant increases in HDL cholesterol and apoA-I levels, fenofibrate was more effective than atorvastatin in altering all these parameters. However, by significantly affecting both the cholesterol-rich and triglyceride-rich particles, atorvastatin holds promise as a lipid-regulator able to adequately treat a broad range of patients that includes those with CHL.

Efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Recent studies have documented the long-term impact of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors on mortality and morbidity related to coronary heart disease, establishing the link between lowering cholesterol levels and reducing cardiac events. Our study was a comparative literature review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of four HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors-fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin-used in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia. The data sources for our meta-analysis of the efficacy of these cholesterol-lowering agents were 52 randomized, double-masked clinical trials with at least 25 patients per treatment arm. The results showed all four agents to be effective in reducing blood cholesterol levels. We computed summary efficacy estimates for all published dose strengths for the four agents. Fluvastatin 20 mg/d reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels by 21.0% and total cholesterol (total-C) levels by 16.4%; fluvastatin 40 mg/d reduced these levels by 23.1% and 17.7%, respectively. Lovastatin 20 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 24.9% and total-C levels by 17.7%; lovastatin 80 mg/d reduced these levels by 39.8% and 29.2%, respectively. Pravastatin 10 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 19.3% and total-C levels by 14.0%; pravastatin 80 mg/d reduced these levels by 37.7% and 28.7%, respectively. Simvastatin 2.5 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 22.9% and total-C levels by 15.7%; simvastatin 40 mg/d reduced these levels by 40.7% and 29.7%, respectively. The results of our meta-analysis can be used in conjunction with treatment objectives and comparative cost-effectiveness data for these agents to decide appropriate therapeutic alternatives for individual patients.

A head-to-head comparison of the cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in different types of primary hyperlipidemia

The objective of this study was to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. Estimates of lipid modification achieved due to drug therapy were based on published head-to-head comparisons of specific HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in randomized, double-blind studies. We used a validated coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention computer model to estimate the costs and benefits of lifelong lipid modification. The patients were middle-aged men and women who were free of CHD, with either primary type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia. The intervention used were specific HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates at several dosages, which reduced total cholesterol 11-34% and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1-29%. The main outcome measure was the cost per year of life saved after discounting benefits and costs by 5% annually. The lifetime cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin) and fibrates (bezafibrate, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil) for the treatment of primary hyperlipidemia varied according to patient population, the effectiveness of each drug in modifying lipid levels, and the price of each drug. The estimates of cost per year of life saved for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors range from $19,886 to $73,632, and $16,955 to $59,488 for fibrates according to gender and type of primary hyperlipidemia. Fluvastatin 20 mg/day was significantly more cost effective than gemfibrozil 1200 mg/day for male patients with type IIa hyperlipidemia. Simvastatin 17.3 mg/day or 20 mg/day yielded similar cost-effectiveness ratios compared with fibrates among type II hyperlipidemic patients. However, micronized fenofibrate was more cost effective than simvastatin 20 mg/day among type IIb patients. The cost effectiveness of lipid therapy varies widely and can be maximized by selecting specific drugs for specific lipid abnormalities.

A Comparison of the Tolerability and Efficacy of Lovastatin 20 mg and Fluvastatin 20 mg in the Treatment of Primary Hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND: To compare the cholesterol-lowering potency of fluvastatin and lovastatin, a randomized, prospective, open-label parallel study was conducted in patients eligible for drug therapy by National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. The study was conducted at eight centers in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were required to follow a cholesterol-lowering diet and were withdrawn from all lipid-lowering agents for 4 seeks prior to study entry. Patients were randomized to receive lovastatin 20 mg of fluvastatin 20 mg daily for 6 weeks. The two treatment groups were comparable with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. Baseline lipid levels in the two groups were comparable. Lovastatin was significantly more effective than fluvastatin in lowering total cholesterol (-;19.5% vs -12.8%, P <.001) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-27.6% vs -18.2%, P <.001). Changes in high-density lipoprotein and triglyceride levels were comparable in the two groups. The differences in cholesterol lowering were similar in the three strata of coronary heart disease risk factor status as defined by the second NCEP Adult Treatment Panel. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Across the three chronic heart disease risk strata, lovastatin appears to be significantly more potent than fluvastatin, on a per milligram basis, in lowering cholesterol levels.

Fluvastatin: a review of its pharmacology and use in the management of hypercholesterolaemia

Fluvastatin, a member of the group of drugs known as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, is used in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolaemia. In clinical trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia, fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/day achieved marked reductions from baseline in serum levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (19 to 31%) and total cholesterol (15 to 21%), along with modest declines in serum triglyceride levels (1 to 12%) and small increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels (2 to 10%). These beneficial effects on the serum lipid profile were similar to those demonstrated with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, although direct comparative trials are limited. Concomitant administration of fluvastatin plus another lipid-lowering agent, such as a bile acid sequestrant, a fibrate or nicotinic acid, usually reduced serum levels of total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol by at least a further 5 to 10% from baseline compared with fluvastatin monotherapy. Fluvastatin has a similar tolerability profile to that of other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Gastrointestinal disturbances, which are usually mild and transient, were the most frequently reported adverse events with fluvastatin in clinical trials. Persistent elevation of serum transaminase levels occurred in approximately 1% of fluvastatin recipients, which is similar to the rate for other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Unlike other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which have been infrequently associated with myopathy and rarely with rhabdomyolysis, these events have not been associated with fluvastatin to date, although fluvastatin has not been used as extensively as agents such as lovastatin. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors other than fluvastatin, when given in combination with drugs such as fibrates, nicotinic acid, cyclosporin or erythromycin, can increase the risk of these potentially serious adverse events. Thus far, myopathy or rhabdomyolysis have not been reported among patients receiving fluvastatin concomitantly with any of these drugs. Therefore, fluvastatin can be given with caution in combination with fibrates, nicotinic acid, cyclosporin or erythromycin. In conclusion, fluvastatin has similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which are among the most effective agents available for treating patients with hypercholesterolaemia. Pharmacoeconomic studies performed to date suggest an advantage for fluvastatin over other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, predominantly because of its relatively low acquisition costs (at least in those countries in which the evaluations were conducted). Thus, fluvastatin is effective and well tolerated in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and appears to have an economic advantage over other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, primarily as a result of its relatively low acquisition costs.

Open-label study to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvastatin versus bezafibrate for hypercholesterolemia

Increased levels of total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are associated with the development of coronary artery disease, which has become a worldwide public health problem. Clinical trials show that, in the long term, effective lowering of total cholesterol and raising of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) can slow atherosclerosis progression and reduce coronary artery disease risk. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvastatin versus bezafibrate (slow release) in patients with cholesterol > 241 mg/dL (6.2 mmol/liter) not responding to dietary treatment alone (cholesterol < 300 mg/day for 8 weeks). Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (13 women, 7 men; mean age, 47.8 +/- 9.7 years; range, 30-70) received 40 mg fluvastatin once daily with their evening meal; group B (14 women, 6 men; mean age, 45 +/- 11 years, range, 25-68) received 400 mg bezafibrate once daily with either breakfast or their evening meal. After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean cholesterol decrease in group A was 27% (from 271 +/- 51.4 to 197.4 +/- 24.3 mg/dL; p < 0.001) versus 8% (from 278.6 +/- 33.2 to 255.8 +/- 20.3 mg/dL; p < 0.005) in group B. At the same time point, LDL-C was significantly decreased in group A (from 197.9 +/- 49 to 107.5 +/- 27.6 mg/dL; p < 0.001) but not in group B (from 181.6 +/- 39.6 to 173.3 +/- 24.3 mg/dL).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effects of fluvastatin on lipid profile and apolipoproteins in Chinese patients with hypercholesterolemia

The effects of fluvastatin treatment on lipid profile and apolipoproteins were assessed in a group of 31 Chinese patients with hypercholesterolemia, maintained on a constant low-fat diet. Some patients had the additional cardiovascular risk factors of hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and 6 patients had familial hypercholesterolemia. Baseline lipid levels were measured after a 4-week placebo period, and these were repeated after 4 weeks of treatment with fluvastatin 20 mg daily, and after 4 weeks of treatment with fluvastatin 40 mg daily. Total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B were each reduced to the same extent with the 2 doses of fluvastatin (-20%, -26%, and -20%, respectively). Triglycerides and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol were also reduced by about 12% with the 2 doses of fluvastatin. Apo A-I was increased by 7% and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was increased by 10% with the 40 mg dose. The increase in HDL-C was due to increases in both HDL2-C (18%) and HDL3-C (7%). Lipoprotein(a) levels did not show any significant change with the 2 doses of fluvastatin in this short-term study. One patient developed reversible asymptomatic elevation of liver enzymes with the higher dose of fluvastatin; otherwise the drug was well tolerated and no patients had to be withdrawn from the study.